New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday held that neither the President nor a Governor is bound by fixed timelines to act on bills passed by Parliament or a state legislature, and the concept of “deemed assent” when such timelines are missed is not permissible.
A Constitution Bench comprising B R Gavai (Chief Justice), along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar observed that imposing a time-limit framework and creating a mechanism of “deemed assent” effectively hands over the constitutional role of the President or Governor to the Court—an outcome that runs counter to the Constitution’s design and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Court pointed out that its earlier judgment of April 8, which had prescribed fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on bills—and introduced the notion of deemed assent if they failed to do so—was incorrect and contrary to constitutional principles.
“The imposition of timelines is strictly contrary to the elasticity that Constitution has preserved. The concept of Deemed assent in the context of Articles 200 and 201 presupposes that one Constitutional authority, namely court, could play a substitutional role for another Constitutional functionary authority – the Governor or President. Such usurpation of gubernatorial powers of governor or president is antithetical to the spirit of the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. The concept of deemed assent of pending bills amounts to virtually takeaway of role of another Constitutional authority,” the bench noted, as reported by Bar and Bench.
It further clarified that “The Governor’s role to grant assent to bills under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another authority by way of deemed assent.”
Significantly, the Court held that the exercise of functions under Articles 200 (state legislation) and 201 (parliamentary legislation) by the Governor or President is not justiciable prior to the bill becoming law. In other words, judicial review can only be invoked after a bill has become law, and not at the stage of assent.
However, the Court acknowledged that where there is an “inordinate and unexplained delay” in a Governor or President discharging their assent function, a court may issue limited directions in the interests of constitutional accountability—but this must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and does not amount to prescribing automatic timelines.
Background to the ruling
The ruling arose out of a reference made by the Droupadi Murmu (President of India) to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. The reference challenged the April 11 decision of a Bench consisting of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., which had held that Governors must act within a “reasonable time” (and even prescribed specific timelines in certain scenarios) to grant or withhold assent to bills.
In that earlier judgment, the Court had outlined that in case of withholding of assent or reservation for the President, the Governor must act within one month.
In case of withholding contrary to the Council of Ministers’ advice, the Governor must return the bill along with a message within three months.
In case of reservation of a bill for Presidential consideration, the Governor must reserve it within three months.
And failure to comply would render the inaction subject to judicial review and “deemed assent.”
The Presidential reference asked whether the Supreme Court can creaqte procedural mechanisms for constitutional authorities in areas where the Constitution is silent, and whether imposing such timelines encroaches upon the discretionary space of the Governor or President.
